Lau
Sep 13, 03:56 AM
Just wondering, does the aluminum material prevent them from manufacturing white models? I prefer white over all the available colours, and it'll prolly go better with my MacBook.
I was wondering the same thing. A white aluminium one with a white clickwheel would look good, I think. The silver's almost there, but if it was just all white that would be great. It's going to be strange to have a white iBook, white leads, white mouse, and then an all-black iPod.
A rough and ready Photoshop job of a white one:
57362
I think it would look very smart indeed.
I was wondering the same thing. A white aluminium one with a white clickwheel would look good, I think. The silver's almost there, but if it was just all white that would be great. It's going to be strange to have a white iBook, white leads, white mouse, and then an all-black iPod.
A rough and ready Photoshop job of a white one:
57362
I think it would look very smart indeed.
sam10685
Jul 22, 10:20 PM
kinda useless for such a small screen i think
dude-- they're making the screen bigger. i don't know how, but they are.
dude-- they're making the screen bigger. i don't know how, but they are.
1984
Sep 4, 01:23 PM
My predictions:
September 12th
New iPod nanos and iMacs, price drop on 5G iPods
October 23rd
New 6G Video iPods and Movie Service
September 12th
New iPod nanos and iMacs, price drop on 5G iPods
October 23rd
New 6G Video iPods and Movie Service
Hisdem
Apr 12, 06:11 PM
Oh come on, people in the USA already get the cheapest stuff. Quit complaining about everything, damn. Honestly, don't see what you don't understand. The world today is about money. Companies don't care where they build it, as long as they make the most money possible. And honestly, most consumers that are reasonable only think about paying the least for the same product.
I don't honestly give a damn where it was made. And I'm in Brazil. Oh, and by the way, things won't get cheaper here. They never do. Foxconn's profit margin is the only thing that will change. And it will rise.
I don't honestly give a damn where it was made. And I'm in Brazil. Oh, and by the way, things won't get cheaper here. They never do. Foxconn's profit margin is the only thing that will change. And it will rise.
heehee
Sep 6, 08:34 AM
Where is the Core 2 Duo in the Macbook Pro? :mad:
sierra oscar
Aug 24, 12:22 PM
The BBC link below - seems to suggest it's all batteries including the latest portables.... however it could be a reporter just not knowing the difference between a PB/iBook and MBP etc
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5283424.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5283424.stm
1984
Sep 4, 01:23 PM
My predictions:
September 12th
New iPod nanos and iMacs, price drop on 5G iPods
October 23rd
New 6G Video iPods and Movie Service
September 12th
New iPod nanos and iMacs, price drop on 5G iPods
October 23rd
New 6G Video iPods and Movie Service
paja
Apr 17, 04:19 PM
Toys R' Us?
I find it kind of embarrassing that Apple is choosing this as an outlet.
I find it kind of embarrassing that Apple is choosing this as an outlet.
spazzcat
Mar 29, 05:23 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I think it will be more like $79...
I think it will be more like $79...
Harmush
Oct 18, 10:34 AM
Slight change again, still need to do something with my 10000000's of cables. :mad:
XaPHER
Oct 25, 11:59 AM
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs903.snc4/71648_164866660198726_100000261799253_456073_3612241_n.jpg
grumps
Nov 8, 04:12 AM
If I go to the Australian Apple Store the delivery time for a Black MacBook is 3-5 days.
If I go to configure and upgrade it to 1Gb RAM the delivery time falls to 2-4 days!!!
Explain that to me all you rumo(u)r experts:confused:
If I go to configure and upgrade it to 1Gb RAM the delivery time falls to 2-4 days!!!
Explain that to me all you rumo(u)r experts:confused:
coryndiego
Mar 14, 05:50 PM
The bookstore at the University Campus I work on just received shipment of 300 MBP 13' 2.23 and are dropping the price $100.00 to $999.00 on top of the academic discount March 17th. I'm not sure if this is a precursor of a New MBP on the 16th, 26th or soon after but my fingers are crossed.
iDutchman
Oct 16, 04:31 PM
Where did you buy that buddha head ?
It's still there. It's just not shown in the picture.
The iPhone first gen hasn't got a very good camera so I could not get it all on the pic.
It's still there. It's just not shown in the picture.
The iPhone first gen hasn't got a very good camera so I could not get it all on the pic.
Northgrove
Apr 18, 07:10 AM
The iPad IS a toy in the eyes of many kids (and a number of adults too :D), so not surprising to me...
Warbrain
Nov 6, 11:53 PM
My prediction: Apple will eventually come out with a 10.6" widescreen "MacBook mini". I think it'll more like 3 lbs, not 2 lbs, though, since that Sony laptop does not have an optical drive. I hope Apple doesn't do away with the optical drive (and I don't think they will), since I think that being a portable DVD player is really a core function of laptops at this point, at least a multimedia and consumer centered laptop (which a MacBook mini would be).
I've seen the Fujitsu 10.6" LifeBook laptops with built-in optical drive and they are sweeeeeeeeeeeet!:
http://www.pcconnection.com/ProductDetail?sku=6170351&srccode=cii_5784816&cpncode=10-28291577-2
One thing about the Fujitsu computers though - they are *expensive* (about $2000). Since Apple is one of the best companies in the world at making very compact products, maybe they can release a game-changing computer in this category. I mean, what if Apple were to basically release the MacBook, just with a smaller screen - and for about the same price as the MacBook!! Apple would have a monster hit on its hands, IMHO. It would be extremely popular with a lot of customers, but especially with students that are already carrying already heavy books, etc. in their bookbags, and would love a lighter, more compact computer...
I just don't see that happening, even if they have an optical drive in it. Apple is content with the portable line as it is, and the MacBook is pretty compact already. Plus, I don't see Apple using a smaller widescreen than 13.3".
I've seen the Fujitsu 10.6" LifeBook laptops with built-in optical drive and they are sweeeeeeeeeeeet!:
http://www.pcconnection.com/ProductDetail?sku=6170351&srccode=cii_5784816&cpncode=10-28291577-2
One thing about the Fujitsu computers though - they are *expensive* (about $2000). Since Apple is one of the best companies in the world at making very compact products, maybe they can release a game-changing computer in this category. I mean, what if Apple were to basically release the MacBook, just with a smaller screen - and for about the same price as the MacBook!! Apple would have a monster hit on its hands, IMHO. It would be extremely popular with a lot of customers, but especially with students that are already carrying already heavy books, etc. in their bookbags, and would love a lighter, more compact computer...
I just don't see that happening, even if they have an optical drive in it. Apple is content with the portable line as it is, and the MacBook is pretty compact already. Plus, I don't see Apple using a smaller widescreen than 13.3".
63dot
Nov 24, 11:36 AM
The Beatles did the meat thing in 1966. ;)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/55/The_Beatles_-_Butcher_Cover.jpg/602px-The_Beatles_-_Butcher_Cover.jpg
The legendary butcher cover.
My brother in law bought the regular cover "Yesterday and Today" album for 25 cents at a garage sale, but underneath the placid regular cover was this gory one.
He then called our friend who owned a local used record shop. The record store owner urged him not to peel off the front image, even though my brother in law was curious as to what may be underneath that wholesome photo of the Beatles. Despite its estimated value at that time (early 90's) being $1,000 dollars, he steamed off the regular cover to reveal the butcher cover and thus dropped the value of the LP by half the amount. The record shop owner was distraught!
The most sought after cover is the censored "safe" one with this gore hiding underneath it. Today a cover like this, with all the blood and gore, would not upset anyone.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/55/The_Beatles_-_Butcher_Cover.jpg/602px-The_Beatles_-_Butcher_Cover.jpg
The legendary butcher cover.
My brother in law bought the regular cover "Yesterday and Today" album for 25 cents at a garage sale, but underneath the placid regular cover was this gory one.
He then called our friend who owned a local used record shop. The record store owner urged him not to peel off the front image, even though my brother in law was curious as to what may be underneath that wholesome photo of the Beatles. Despite its estimated value at that time (early 90's) being $1,000 dollars, he steamed off the regular cover to reveal the butcher cover and thus dropped the value of the LP by half the amount. The record shop owner was distraught!
The most sought after cover is the censored "safe" one with this gore hiding underneath it. Today a cover like this, with all the blood and gore, would not upset anyone.
Mr. Retrofire
Apr 11, 05:41 AM
So will this indicate CS6 end of the year?
CS6 comes after Lion, which we can expect in February/March/April 2012. Lion and CS6 will be optimized for Ivy Bridge. Lion public beta is also possible after WWDC 2011.
CS6 comes after Lion, which we can expect in February/March/April 2012. Lion and CS6 will be optimized for Ivy Bridge. Lion public beta is also possible after WWDC 2011.
greenstork
Aug 3, 05:24 PM
When new products are released in a keynote like the one coming up, are they normally ready to ship?
It just depends. Motorola was notoriously slow at ramping up production of new chips. Consequently, Apple would release new hardware and buyers would have to wait 1-3 months to receive them. That has since improved since Apple got a lot of bad press from that practice. I'm guessing that you'll have to wait a couple weeks for conroe & woodcrest based systems and perhaps a month for merom.
It just depends. Motorola was notoriously slow at ramping up production of new chips. Consequently, Apple would release new hardware and buyers would have to wait 1-3 months to receive them. That has since improved since Apple got a lot of bad press from that practice. I'm guessing that you'll have to wait a couple weeks for conroe & woodcrest based systems and perhaps a month for merom.
retrospek
Oct 26, 06:23 PM
I've just installed this update and my Macbook volume seems much louder than before..
Unless I'm imagining it :D Anyone else noticed ?
Unless I'm imagining it :D Anyone else noticed ?
mac15
Oct 12, 04:42 AM
macs need to catch up, their Hardware is pretty mediocre, but hopefully it can change
NewSc2
Oct 15, 03:31 PM
In a word, no. I've seen the demonstrations on the Internet about how you can find another person using a Zune and give them a song they can play three times. It takes forever. By the time you've gone through all that, the girl's got up and left! You're much better off to take one of your earbuds out and put it in her ear. Then you're connected with about two feet of headphone cable.
We heard something really similar to that when every other company released video-playing mp3 players before Apple did, and Jobs said he didn't see anybody wanting to have portable video. Well, Apple bit its tongue and released it, calling it "innovation".
I'm a big iPod fan (i've purchased 3) but wireless capabilities is the way of the future. I don't see ourselves in 10 years still being limited by wired headphones and such. Maybe it'll be easier than the Zune (haven't seen the demo) but the idea of beaming a song for somebody else to download/hear is pretty cool to me.
We heard something really similar to that when every other company released video-playing mp3 players before Apple did, and Jobs said he didn't see anybody wanting to have portable video. Well, Apple bit its tongue and released it, calling it "innovation".
I'm a big iPod fan (i've purchased 3) but wireless capabilities is the way of the future. I don't see ourselves in 10 years still being limited by wired headphones and such. Maybe it'll be easier than the Zune (haven't seen the demo) but the idea of beaming a song for somebody else to download/hear is pretty cool to me.
wake6830
Jan 11, 12:00 PM
They're skipping the whole touchscreen/tablet thing and moving straight to 3D holograms that allow you to type, drag/drop and everything else by moving your hands and fingers around inside the hologram.
mscriv
Apr 11, 11:57 AM
I object to the notion that good deeds I do are due to vanity, pride etc.
No, sorry, you cannot have that one. "Altruistic" does not coincide with "vanity and self glorification". In my filthy heathen state of unsaved gracelessness, I still do things for which my only reward is a smile. And even when I do have an ulterior motive ("you can return the favor at your leisure, to me or to someone else"), how does that detract from my having done well and good by someone else?
I find this statement utterly appalling. Do those who sacrifice themselves for others do so from selfish motives?
I agree. There is so much wrong with the original statement in addition to your point. I consider "goodness" to get your spot in heaven the ultimate in selfishness. Also, what about gods other than Jesus, are the good things performed in their name just as "selfless"?
Ok, good questions and thoughts. Let me explain/expound upon my statement. The bolded part below seems to be what is drawing the most reaction.
An accurate understanding of original sin does not mean that man is completely "evil" in the sense that we are incapable of doing works that would be considered "good" or altruistic. The human spirit is capable of many good things, but without an accurate understanding of who God is and our relationship to him these good works become nothing but acts of vanity and self glorification that serve only to advance pride and promote self-reliance.
I am not speaking about conscious motivation within an individuals actions/behavior, although that could be true as we all know people do at times act out of selfish and prideful intentions.
I'm talking about a theological understanding of man's state before God. For those that do not believe in a higher power or absolute truth, man, in and of himself, is the highest order of existence/being/evolution, etc. etc.. Thus, any and all accomplishments of man ("good works") are then viewed as self evident truths to this proposition. Man's capacity for altruism, self sacrifice, and compassion are seen as proof of his independence from God. "See what we can accomplish on our own... we don't need God." In this manner all of man's action is an act of self glorification and self reliance.
I'm in a "helping profession" and work daily with people who seek to support and serve others. Many do this out of the "goodness of their own heart" and genuinely do not seek any form of return for their efforts. On a human level these actions are noble and sacrificial and I applaud them. However, on a spiritual level, I must recognize that scripture teaches us that our "good deeds" are worthless if our heart is not right with God.
Please understand, this doesn't mean that the positive results of these actions are meaningless. For example, giving food to the homeless is a sacrificial act that does help people in need, but it will in no way earn you "points" with God. The Bible does not teach a theology of works. It's not about what you do, it's about your relationship with Christ.
Again, as I always say, this is ultimately an issue of faith and I completely understand that it can be hard to comprehend for some. And it is a subtle nuance to understand the difference between doing something because you adhere to a set of principles (right vs. wrong) and doing it because it is an outflow of your relationship with God.
It's like I told someone recently in a conversation we were having. I don't stay true to my wife because being unfaithful to her would be the morally wrong thing to do. I could care less about the moral principle of marital faithfulness. My motivation for staying true to my wife is that I have an intimate loving relationship with her and I would never want to hurt her or damage that relationship in any way.
Which takes us into rougher territory. If works are relatively insignificant in the scheme of salvation, your absolute moral code starts to crumble and fall in on itself. For, why should a believer bother to follow it if the saviour is always near at hand to forgive and redeem?
You may not realize it Sydde, but what you are saying is still along the lines of a works based relationship with God and that is not what the Bible teaches. It's not about a revolving door of "messing up" and and then asking for forgiveness. Christ death paid the price in full for all sin (past, present, and future). What matters is the condition of your heart before him and the intimacy of your relationship with him. Within that context are you seeking your own way including your own selfish desires or are you seeking to be the servant leader he wants you to be. The examples you gave in your post were all of people being selfishly motivated for their own gain.
In light of the examples of history (perhaps including those in the bible itself), how can you say that religion has made anyone a better person than they would have been? To me, it looks like religion has made the world a worse place than it might have been without it.
I'd think you would agree that people like Mother Theresa were able to successfully live out their faith with the goal of bringing glory to God while serving others. She's just the first example that pops into my head, but there are countless others. Again, it's not about "religion" making us "better people", that's a selfish manner of thinking. My relationship with God is not about me, it's about him.
"Many people mistake our work for our vocation. Our vocation is the love of Jesus."
"There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the work. This is where the respect and the love and the devotion come in - that we do it to God, to Christ, and that's why we try to do it as beautifully as possible."
~ Mother Theresa
Every time I hear about how we are naturally selfish and corrupt, I hear the utterer trying to apologize for their own faults by expanding them upon all others. As a counselor, you should be familiar with the mechanism called "projection".
I'm very familiar with projection. I can assure you that is not what's happening here. I'm merely presenting what God has communicated to us through the Bible. Could it be that your skepticism and cynicism is a projection of something within you? Why don't you come over he and lie on this couch and tell me about your mother... ;)
Yet, again, the absolutes get bent. When believers run up against a moral wall that divides them from their goals, they seek the counsel of a cleric. The cleric typically sympathizes with the believer's plight and very often finds a way to interpret the scripture to turn the question to the believer's favor. So you have your absolutes, but they are also flexible. What good then are they, that they can be molded to suit your needs? How is this better than situational ethics (logic, reason and compromise), other than to employ scholars in the service of the almighty?
Well, first of all, "clerics" are not required for us to interpret scripture or have a relationship with God. When Christ was crucified he tore the temple veil representing that his sacrifice has made the way for man to have a direct relationship with God, no human intermediary is required. As far as prooftexting or manipulating scripture for your own personal motives due to a presenting dilemma, well, I'm sure you already know my answer to this based on my previous comments. Scripture stands alone as authoritative regardless of how I "feel" about it or what I "want" it to say. If I'm seeking to find an "exception" in scripture to justify my own position then my heart is not in the right place.
I have had more than a third of a century (from teenage years) to develop my philosophy and unbeliefs, and you are obviously quite steadfast in yours, so yes, there can be little doubt of the mexican stand-off. Does it trouble you? As hoary and mulish as I may be, I still find merit in these discussions, because they draw things out into the light that I had not bothered to look at. You do teach me things, though they are almost certainly not the things you intend. I hope you in some way also benefit, it would be a shame to think this only leads you to despair.
Fret not my friend. I think there is extreme merit in these discussions and I appreciate the respectful way in which many of us here are able to engage each other on such topics.
As far as me being troubled or in "despair" the answer to your question is both yes and no. I do seek to consistently and genuinely live out my faith and thus I do wish to see other's come into relationship with Christ (you know that whole "go ye therefore" thing in the Bible). However, do I judge others and base my entire relationship with them on evangelistic purposes? No. One of the greatest gifts God has given us is free will, in fact, without free will everything we are talking about falls apart. I respect, just as God has designed it to be, that people have the freedom and the ability to reject him and live their life as they see fit. I love, value, relate to, and learn from others regardless of their spiritual beliefs. It would be foolish of me to limit my relationships with people solely on their spirituality or lack thereof. My goal is to accept people as they are, treat them with dignity and respect, and seek out how I might serve or support them in the context of our relationship.
Besides, if I do happen to get down about it, I know a pretty good therapist. ;)
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to address the questions/comments that had been made. :)
No, sorry, you cannot have that one. "Altruistic" does not coincide with "vanity and self glorification". In my filthy heathen state of unsaved gracelessness, I still do things for which my only reward is a smile. And even when I do have an ulterior motive ("you can return the favor at your leisure, to me or to someone else"), how does that detract from my having done well and good by someone else?
I find this statement utterly appalling. Do those who sacrifice themselves for others do so from selfish motives?
I agree. There is so much wrong with the original statement in addition to your point. I consider "goodness" to get your spot in heaven the ultimate in selfishness. Also, what about gods other than Jesus, are the good things performed in their name just as "selfless"?
Ok, good questions and thoughts. Let me explain/expound upon my statement. The bolded part below seems to be what is drawing the most reaction.
An accurate understanding of original sin does not mean that man is completely "evil" in the sense that we are incapable of doing works that would be considered "good" or altruistic. The human spirit is capable of many good things, but without an accurate understanding of who God is and our relationship to him these good works become nothing but acts of vanity and self glorification that serve only to advance pride and promote self-reliance.
I am not speaking about conscious motivation within an individuals actions/behavior, although that could be true as we all know people do at times act out of selfish and prideful intentions.
I'm talking about a theological understanding of man's state before God. For those that do not believe in a higher power or absolute truth, man, in and of himself, is the highest order of existence/being/evolution, etc. etc.. Thus, any and all accomplishments of man ("good works") are then viewed as self evident truths to this proposition. Man's capacity for altruism, self sacrifice, and compassion are seen as proof of his independence from God. "See what we can accomplish on our own... we don't need God." In this manner all of man's action is an act of self glorification and self reliance.
I'm in a "helping profession" and work daily with people who seek to support and serve others. Many do this out of the "goodness of their own heart" and genuinely do not seek any form of return for their efforts. On a human level these actions are noble and sacrificial and I applaud them. However, on a spiritual level, I must recognize that scripture teaches us that our "good deeds" are worthless if our heart is not right with God.
Please understand, this doesn't mean that the positive results of these actions are meaningless. For example, giving food to the homeless is a sacrificial act that does help people in need, but it will in no way earn you "points" with God. The Bible does not teach a theology of works. It's not about what you do, it's about your relationship with Christ.
Again, as I always say, this is ultimately an issue of faith and I completely understand that it can be hard to comprehend for some. And it is a subtle nuance to understand the difference between doing something because you adhere to a set of principles (right vs. wrong) and doing it because it is an outflow of your relationship with God.
It's like I told someone recently in a conversation we were having. I don't stay true to my wife because being unfaithful to her would be the morally wrong thing to do. I could care less about the moral principle of marital faithfulness. My motivation for staying true to my wife is that I have an intimate loving relationship with her and I would never want to hurt her or damage that relationship in any way.
Which takes us into rougher territory. If works are relatively insignificant in the scheme of salvation, your absolute moral code starts to crumble and fall in on itself. For, why should a believer bother to follow it if the saviour is always near at hand to forgive and redeem?
You may not realize it Sydde, but what you are saying is still along the lines of a works based relationship with God and that is not what the Bible teaches. It's not about a revolving door of "messing up" and and then asking for forgiveness. Christ death paid the price in full for all sin (past, present, and future). What matters is the condition of your heart before him and the intimacy of your relationship with him. Within that context are you seeking your own way including your own selfish desires or are you seeking to be the servant leader he wants you to be. The examples you gave in your post were all of people being selfishly motivated for their own gain.
In light of the examples of history (perhaps including those in the bible itself), how can you say that religion has made anyone a better person than they would have been? To me, it looks like religion has made the world a worse place than it might have been without it.
I'd think you would agree that people like Mother Theresa were able to successfully live out their faith with the goal of bringing glory to God while serving others. She's just the first example that pops into my head, but there are countless others. Again, it's not about "religion" making us "better people", that's a selfish manner of thinking. My relationship with God is not about me, it's about him.
"Many people mistake our work for our vocation. Our vocation is the love of Jesus."
"There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the work. This is where the respect and the love and the devotion come in - that we do it to God, to Christ, and that's why we try to do it as beautifully as possible."
~ Mother Theresa
Every time I hear about how we are naturally selfish and corrupt, I hear the utterer trying to apologize for their own faults by expanding them upon all others. As a counselor, you should be familiar with the mechanism called "projection".
I'm very familiar with projection. I can assure you that is not what's happening here. I'm merely presenting what God has communicated to us through the Bible. Could it be that your skepticism and cynicism is a projection of something within you? Why don't you come over he and lie on this couch and tell me about your mother... ;)
Yet, again, the absolutes get bent. When believers run up against a moral wall that divides them from their goals, they seek the counsel of a cleric. The cleric typically sympathizes with the believer's plight and very often finds a way to interpret the scripture to turn the question to the believer's favor. So you have your absolutes, but they are also flexible. What good then are they, that they can be molded to suit your needs? How is this better than situational ethics (logic, reason and compromise), other than to employ scholars in the service of the almighty?
Well, first of all, "clerics" are not required for us to interpret scripture or have a relationship with God. When Christ was crucified he tore the temple veil representing that his sacrifice has made the way for man to have a direct relationship with God, no human intermediary is required. As far as prooftexting or manipulating scripture for your own personal motives due to a presenting dilemma, well, I'm sure you already know my answer to this based on my previous comments. Scripture stands alone as authoritative regardless of how I "feel" about it or what I "want" it to say. If I'm seeking to find an "exception" in scripture to justify my own position then my heart is not in the right place.
I have had more than a third of a century (from teenage years) to develop my philosophy and unbeliefs, and you are obviously quite steadfast in yours, so yes, there can be little doubt of the mexican stand-off. Does it trouble you? As hoary and mulish as I may be, I still find merit in these discussions, because they draw things out into the light that I had not bothered to look at. You do teach me things, though they are almost certainly not the things you intend. I hope you in some way also benefit, it would be a shame to think this only leads you to despair.
Fret not my friend. I think there is extreme merit in these discussions and I appreciate the respectful way in which many of us here are able to engage each other on such topics.
As far as me being troubled or in "despair" the answer to your question is both yes and no. I do seek to consistently and genuinely live out my faith and thus I do wish to see other's come into relationship with Christ (you know that whole "go ye therefore" thing in the Bible). However, do I judge others and base my entire relationship with them on evangelistic purposes? No. One of the greatest gifts God has given us is free will, in fact, without free will everything we are talking about falls apart. I respect, just as God has designed it to be, that people have the freedom and the ability to reject him and live their life as they see fit. I love, value, relate to, and learn from others regardless of their spiritual beliefs. It would be foolish of me to limit my relationships with people solely on their spirituality or lack thereof. My goal is to accept people as they are, treat them with dignity and respect, and seek out how I might serve or support them in the context of our relationship.
Besides, if I do happen to get down about it, I know a pretty good therapist. ;)
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to address the questions/comments that had been made. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment